[FOM] A proof that ZFC has no any omega-models
nweaver at math.wustl.edu
Tue Feb 26 02:16:14 EST 2013
Monroe Eskew wrote:
> If we can just add simple prefixes and suffixes to mathematical work in
> a uniform way to satisfy the ontologically conservative, then it seems
> we've found a rather boring solution to their problems.
Monroe, I think what really makes ontological issues contentious is
the value implications they have. If we decide that the set theoretic
platonists have a truthful picture of the mathematical universe, then
it is of great intinsic interest to understand that picture better by
investigating all of the things set theorists investigate. These things
will be interesting in their own right, regardless of whether they have,
say, any substantial bearing on mainstream mathematics.
Whereas if we decide that picture is ontologically extravagent then
our perception of the significance of that kind of mathematics is bound
to be dramatically altered.
More information about the FOM